to the new ppts to plan for the loading of the historical data. we have a lot of different fees in the system and (inaudible) the configuration and giving the vendor input and moving forward on the fees. additionally there are scripts being built in the system that specify dbi and planning requirements and those are being built and reviewed. there are many reports in the system. we've been prioritizing these reports and designing the specifications and identifying which ones the vendor will build, which ones we'll build internally. there are a number of system interfaces, including address, parcel, cashiering, et cetera. we are meeting with various

different team members to define those requirements and document them. we have continued meetings with planning where we identify enterprise level processes, process improvement for what starts in planning, what starts in dbi, the hand offs between the two organizations and how we will work it with the new system. our next steps are we're in the process of putting fogt -- together a letter to invite the citizen access committee members to a meeting january 30. we will continue the development stages i explained for the excella automation and the excella public portal. we will complete the test cases and do the kick off with our staff. be glad to answer any questions. >> so just what we got your list, we put our list together

from the dbi site. have planning got back together with you -- you said 16? >> yes. >> so that list is put together now? >> yes, we're in the process of finalizing that and we'll be sending out that letter. >> do dbi, do we have a meeting before that to look at who's on those lists before they go out, finalize everything. >> i can check on that. >> yeah, it's important that whoever is on this list is a working group. >> we're in the process of contacting those potential members and then releasing the letter. >> planning has the list right now. >> yes. >> could we get that list? >> i'm in the process to reach joan from planning to finalize the list. we get, say, 7, initially they come back with more than that. both sides get

an equal number. >> 7? i think it was 14. how do you get consensus with that number of people. are you saying they are bringing it down to that number of people? >> i will meet with joan and finalize it. >> so before the meeting in january we will finalize it and they will know who's on our list. >> since president mccarthy says our list is together, is it just staff or does it include stake holders and people we look at. >> one commissioner and also outside consultant. >> stake holders. >> could we see that list too? >> yeah, i'd like to see the planning list. a lot of people are going to put their time and effort into this so we want to make sure we have a good

working group. okay. >> thanks. >> thank you, penny. >> item 8d, update on other technology projects. >> director tom hue, since pam is not here because she is home today, same report last month, i don't think there's that many update on the item. >> item 8e, update on q-matic. >> this is regarding q-matic. i regret to inform you, i want to put a closure on this particular q-matic. however, we tried a few months ago and it doesn't work out and then my decision before is to put a temporary on hold. now after the discussion with the staff and also former committee to

investigate on this particular process, that's summarized in my letter to all the commissioner here. i would like to put a closure on here and put permanent slip on this system. >> great, i know commissioner mccray requested to have closure on it. so this letter officially does that to us. okay. >> do we have to make any motions, take any actions on it? just executive decision? all right, good. >> thank you. >> thank you for pointing that out and writing the letter for closure, dr. mccray. >> is there any further commissioner comments or is there any public comment on items 8a through e >> i think it's good to put closure on the q-matic thing. i know there was staff recommendations about what was put in place, it came from assistant director sweeney

about how the fifth floor was functioning. it would be nice to get an update how things are going now, not this meeting but maybe at a future meeting we could angendize it and maybe have a very brief written report about what is the process now to sign in, the list, the line situation and how the supervising management is kind of keeping tabs on the performance of the various staff and how distribution of labor is going. >> commissioner melgar. >> i'm also glad we're closing in on closing the book on q-matic. i'm wondering, though, i know when we had, we heard testimony from folks that it was an overwhelming thing, everybody really hated it. i'm wondering if there's a way that we could meet those things using technology and how -- and

what the, you know, information technology's director feels about that and if it's on her plate or if there's something that she's thought about. it just seems like what bothered me about the whole q-matic chapter is that it's such old technology, right? it's like 18-year-old technology that we're just now implementing last year because of a very long procurement process. there's a way to do this stuff and we're in the heart of silicon valley. we could do better. so i'm wondering if, you know, it's not just between q-matic and paper, there's a whole range of options and if we're considering any of those. >> yeah, indeed i asked my mis manager to look in to see any system existing in this state but right now they say there's nothing can do it right now, maybe in the future, but they

still investigating anything in the market. >> nothing can do which, keep track of people? >> for example, not only keep track of people, multiple function, multiple flow in our system. permit processing is a little difficult. if we only submit the permit that means we only get the number. but meanwhile you want to function to issue permit, we have a number of floors and also multiple function. right now it's hard to find system to suit our needs, but we are still looking to see anything in the world or somewhere we can find, especially in multiple floor situation where we can get a better place to have everybody housed on the same floor or something. >> right. no, i mean i appreciate that staff is doing due diligence. it's difficult for me to believe that there is no such thing. i mean, you know, we are unique but we're

not that unique. there are other large city departments around, not just the country but the world, that deal with multiple floors, multiple functions, multiple departments. >> example, in oakland, they only submit the job. san jose also submit a job. los angeles also submit a job. it's a little bit different in our case. therefore we are still looking, doesn't mean we give up the idea. >> great. >> deputy director sweeney, you were just going to say --. >> i think if we ever came across a system or heard of a system that's worked, bring it to us and talk to us about it. >> we had los angeles building and safety up two months ago and i showed them the fifth floor, they were very surprised about the ease with which you

can come in. they say you make an appointment and you come in at 11:00, 10 after 11:00 and you meet the building inspector or the engineer, then you can go over the counter, but you have to have an appointment. second thing they were surprised about is some of the size of the jobs that we'll plan check over the counter. oakland, everything comes in and they turn it around and they give you a date to come pick it up. and san jose, as tom said, it's by appointment only. so we are kind of unique where we have a large floor where people get off the elevator, sign a list and are seen in order. >> commissioner. >> you know, i think commissioner melgar makes a good point but i also have discussed some of this with deputy director sweeney after the q-matic was stopped. and i think -- so even putting aside the multiple floor issue, i

think if we just get more of a report, an update about how are we handling the fifth floor? because i feel like that's where a lot of the action is. of course if someone has to go somewhere else, first floor, second floor, there's other issues there. there's a different way of standing in line in those places but i want to make sure it's very transparent if we just took care of that, the transparency for both the staff output as well as the, you know, contractors, expediters, whomever, the professionals who come in and need the service from the fifth floor, that they feel there's a system where they are getting in line and they are getting taken care of, that's what i would kind of like to get updated on. we just deal with the fifth floor. >> okay. thank you, deputy director. >> thank you. item no. 9,

commissioner's questions and matters. 9a, inquiries to staff. at this time commissioners may make inquiries to staff regarding various documents, policies, practices and procedures which are of interest to the commission. is there any? item 9b, future meetings or agendas. at this time the commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a special meeting and/or determine those items that would be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the building inspection commission. and as mentioned earlier, the next building inspection commission meeting is on january 16th. >> okay. is there any future business anybody would like to have discussed at an upcoming meeting? >> i'm not sure exactly where we should angendize this, but

i've heard there's still a lot of for closures or pending foreclosures in san francisco. it's isolated in certain neighborhoods. i with like to fiepld out what we can do in terms of outstanding nov's. some of this has come up in terms of the blight situation. some of those properties are getting auctioned off so i'm concerned with what, just kind of a report whether we know where some of those places are and the issue is some of the buildings or some of those foreclosures have tenants in them and some of them have owners. and in many cases the tenants don't even know that their place is being sold until it happens and they get an eviction, either an owner move in eviction or something like

that. this is something i just -- to see -- i don't know, maybe there's, maybe our department, it's not under the purview of our department, because we're always concerned about dislocating tenants and dislocating home owners. i'm wondering if there's some interface with the city attorney's office or other folks in terms of -- because i feel like, i've heard from community groups that this is still a big issue. it still -- it's moved out of some of the better neighborhoods but it's still a big issue in some of the poorer areas. >> yeah, commissioner mar, i know your concern but i don't think we have the data regarding the foreclosure because we don't, you know, we punch up those data or --. >> yeah, i guess the nov's i think we do have but how we would tie it in, i guess, is

what you're saying there, commissioner. >> right. >> deputy sweeney to the rescue? >> we have a list of vacant buildings and on that list often times the bank is listed as the owner. so we could use that, take a look at that. >> any other further -- i actually have -- thank you -- i have an interest. on my project the inspector couldn't get parking and conversation came up and he drove around and finally got parking and opened up the discussion and i found out our inspectors are liable for parking tickets on certain criteria, whether we have placards or not. in my particular project, it's extremely difficult to park and

whatever parking spaces i paid for and are used by my contractors so a lot of them have to double park and they are not parking in spots that are available to them. and i just want to kind of have the discussion, maybe if staff could kind of update me how much parking tickets our inspectors are generating. the big thing for me are other departments, like the water department, planning, whatever, do they have the same problem we have when they go to job sites, are they (inaudible) more frequently than our inspectors are. something that struck me when i was talking to the inspector on my project. calendar that, have a conversation. >> is there any public comment on items 9a or b?

seeing none, adjournment. is there a motion to adjourn? >> move to adjourn. >> second. >> happy holidays, everybody, see you at the christmas party tomorrow afternoon. >> happy holidays, we have a motion and a second. all in favor? any opposed? we are adjourned and it is 12.25pm

>> hi. i am cory with san francisco and we're doing stay safe and we're going to talk about what shelter in place or safe enough to stay in your home means. we're here at the urban center on mission street in san francisco and joined by carla, the deputy director of spur and one of the persons who pushed this shelter in place and safe enough to stay concept and we want to talk about what it means and why it's important to san francisco. >> as you know the bay area as 63% chance of having a major

earthquake and it's serious and going to impact a lot of people and particularly people in san francisco because we live on a major fault so what does this mean for us? part of what it means is that potentially 25% of san francisco's building stock will be uninhibit tabl and people can't stay in their homes after an earthquake. they may have to go to shelters or leave entirely and we don't want that to happen. >> we want a building stock to encourage them to stay in the homes and encourage them to stay and not relocate to other locations and shelters. >> that's right so that means the housing needs to be safe enough to stay and we have been focused in trying to define what that means and you as a former

building official knows better than anybody the code says if an earthquake happens it won't kill you but doesn't necessarily say that can you stay in your home and we set out to define what that might mean and you know because you built this house we're in now and this shows what it's like to be in a place safe enough to stay. it's not going to be perfect. there maybe cracks in the walls and not have gas or electricity within a while but can you essentially camp out within your unit. what's it going to take to get the housing stock up to this standard? we spent time talking about this and one of the building types we talk about was soft story buildings and the ground

floor is vulnerable because there are openings for garages or windows and during the earthquake we saw in the marina they went right over and those are -- >> very vulnerable buildings. >> very and there are a lot of apartment buildings in san that that are like that. >> and time to. >> >> retrofit the buildings so people can stay in them after the earthquake. >> what do they need? do they need information? do they need incentives? mandates? >> that's a good question. i think it starts with information. people think that new buildings are earthquake proof and don't understand the performance the building will have so we want a transparent of letting people know is my building going to be safe in it

after an earthquake? is my building so dangers i should be afraid of being injured? so developing a ranking system for buildings would be very important and i think for some of the larger apartment buildings that are soft story we need a mandatory program to fix the buildings, not over night and not without financial help or incentive, but a phased program over time that is reasonable so we can fix those buildings, and for the smaller soft story buildings and especially in san francisco and the houses over garages we need information and incentives and coaxing the people along and each of the owners want their house to be safe enough. >> we want the system and not just mandate everybody. >> that's right. >> i hear about people talking about this concept of

resiliency. as you're fixing your knowledge you're adding to the city wide resiliency. >> >> what does that mean? >> that's a great question. what spur has done is look at that in terms of recovery and in new orleans with katrina and lost many of the people, hasn't recovered the building stock. it's not a good situation. i think we can agree and in san we want to rebuild well and quickly after a major disaster so we have defined what that means for our life lines. how do we need the gasolines to perform and water perform after an earthquake and the building stock as well, so we have the goal of 95% of our homes to be ready for shelter in place after a major earthquake, and that way people can stay within the

city. we don't lose our work force. we don't lose the people that make san francisco so special. we keep everybody here and that allow us to recover our economy, and everything because it's so interdependent. >> so that is a difficult goal but i think we can achieve it over the long time so thank you very much for hosting us and hosting this great exhibit, and thank you very much for joining >> the meeting will come to order. good afternoon, everyone. it's monday, november 19, 2012. this is the land use and economic development committee of the san francisco board of supervisors.

my name is eric mar, i'm the chair of the committee. to my left is supervisor scott wiener. supervisor maly a cohen is absent today. our clerk is derek evans. mr. evans, can you please give us the announcements? >> yes. please make sure all electronic devices are off, copies submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on december 4, 2012 san francisco board of supervisors agenda unless stated. >> thank you. we have six items on the agenda today. but i've been notified by supervisor olague, item number 5, she has urged us to continue that to item on the call of the chair. that is the resolution to remove all management proposals and activities derived from the sharp park conceptual restoration alternatives report's alternative a18 from the environmental impact report for the san francisco recreation and park department's significant natural resource areas management plan, and to consider proposals and alternatives for the future of sharp park golf course through a separate and complete california environmental

quality act review process. so, even though i'll move to continue that to the call of the chair, we still will hear public comment on that item. and my understanding is that item number 6, improved taxi service quarterly report, supervisor wiener's item, that is potentially going to be continued as well. >> for one week. >> for one week. and because items number 1 and 2 are sponsored by our president david chiu and he's tied up in a gao committee meeting right now, hopefully without objection, we can jump to item number 31st. so, without objection, mr. evans, please call item number 3. >> item number 3, [inaudible] ordinance amending the san francisco planning code by: 1, adding section 318 to put a cap on the number of efficiency dwelling units, as defined in the building code, that can be constructed with reduced square footage unless the units are group housing, affordable housing, or student housing; 2, amending section 135 (d) and adding section 135.4 to impose open space and common space requirements on efficiency dwelling units with reduced square footage; and 3, making environmental findings, planning code section 302 findings, and findings of

consistency with the general plan and the priority policies of planning code section 101.1 -- with reduced square footage. >> thank you. and the sponsor supervisor scott wiener. >> thank you, mr. chairman. today is planning code legislation to the efficiency unit legislation that has already been heard in this committee that other legislation which is at the board of supervisors on tomorrow's agenda is a building code amendment. the companion legislation before us today is a planning code amendment. this legislation is being considered as a committee report, that it can be heard tomorrow as well, and dovetail in terms of timing with the underlying building code amendment. specifically, this legislation before us today is an amendment to the planning code that would establish a cap on the number of smaller efficiency units for the planning department entitled before a study and re-authorization would be required. the cap is set at 375 market rate, smaller efficiency units, after approximately 3 25 smaller efficiency units are entitled by the planning department. the department would be required to conduct a study so

we can better understand how these units are being used. over the past several months i have worked with others, including board president david chiu, and various community organizations including the council of community housing organization, community housing partnership, the housing rights committee, and [speaker not understood], to develop this compromise piece of legislation. i'm happy to report that we have reached a compromise to allow for the program to proceed. i will also note that the cap does not include student housing, group housing, and affordable housing. and then i also want to note that today i am offering some amendmentses to the planning code administration. before i have those distributed, those amendments, i will describe them. the amendments basically speak

to the reporting requirement from the planning department as well as to the common open space requirements. in terms of reporting, the amendments before us today include language that articulates what at a minimum the report on the efficiency units should include. these reporting data points are sales and rental placing, a map showing the geographic distribution of the units, data comparing smaller efficiency unit production with stated unit mixed goals and adopted area plans. and a comparison against the regional housing needs assessment or rema goals. regarding the common open space requirement, the amendment to the legislation will require at a minimum 10 square feet of common open space for each smaller efficiency unit as defined in the legislation. while i'm supportive of this trial with the